Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Planesdragon's Journal: They've let me down again 18

Journal by Planesdragon

I watched as much of the RNC as I could, listening in the background when I wasn't sitting down and watching the speaches.

When I started, I wanted to see the RNC tell me why I should vote for them. I wanted good reasons to vote for Bush instead of Kerry, examples of how his character was different and better than the Senator from MA.

And instead I got this!

Kerry supported the war on terrorism. He supported going to war in Iraq, and taking the fight to everyone who deserved it.

The difference between Kerry and Bush--and no Republican has the cojones to say it--is that Kerry drew the line at misleading the public to get them to do the right thing when the subterfuge was unnecessary.

There were half a dozen actual, proven reasons to invade Iraq. Any one of them by itself would have been justification to invade post 9/11. "Clear and Present Danger" and "WMD" are not in that list, and I don't think I'll ever forgive the right wing for letting this slide.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

They've let me down again More

They've let me down again

Comments Filter:
  • I actually voted Republican in 2000. Voted for Bush. I did so out of my Catholicism- I voted pro-life, single issue. I was rewarded with a war that is definately anti-life (even the Pope said that the war in Iraq was unjust and wrong). I was rewarded with a showpiece of legislation, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which had a rider that limited federal funding for prenatal care (which caused an actual INCREASE in abortion due to economic force as opposed to choice), and the abortion part of which was st
    • ...which caused an actual INCREASE in abortion...
      Is there any published data that actually supports this conclusion? I've looked at both the CDC and AGI reports, and niether include more recent data than 2000.
      • The only thing I've seen so far is an informal AMA study in 2002, and an even more informal sort of exit poll done by Oregon Right To Life. But given that 12% of legal abortions have been due to economic situations since it became legal in 1973 (and probably a good deal of the illegal ones before that), the fact that both of these informal studies agree tells me that perhaps they are on to something. Certainly, it would have been far cheaper, purely economically, for us to abort my son than to actually ha
        • Universal pre-natal care is an interesting idea... it would probably solve the whole solvency problem with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by increasing the birth rate.
          • I'm not sure it would *actually* increase the birth rate that much (like I said, only 144,000 abortions per year are due to this economic reason, we import more workers from Mexico than that in a single month)- but what it would do is lower our mother and child mortality rate to nearly non-existant (it's already below 2/10,000 prety consistently, theoretical threshold from socialist countries is down around the 1/100,000 range). Also, compared with immigration of 2 million a year, even if every child in da
            • i agree that it's not a guaranteed fix or anything, but if we put population on a faster exponential growth, population might be able to grow at a rate that increases fast enough to keep pace with all the old-age government benefits. we could get to a point where the population was younger and that those proportions were sustainable. as europe is figuring out, a nanny state is unsustainable when birth rates are low.
              • Heck, if we'd just get back up to ZPG the average age of the population would drop considerably. Right now, we're still at 2.0 children per family on the average- less than the estimated 2.1 needed for replacement population, though more than the 1.6 dip we had in the 80s. We're still importing most of our population growth. And those are older people.
  • There were half a dozen actual, proven reasons to invade Iraq. Any one of them by itself would have been justification to invade post 9/11.

    Yes, there were other reasons, but as far as I can tell, none of them would justify an immediate invasion. They might justify some invasion at a later time, if more UN actions were disregarded by Iraq (and if the UN passed a resolution supporting such an invasion), but none of them justified an immediate invasion and regime change the way that a "Clear and Present Dan
  • Let's see, Kerry drew the line on invading Iraq back in 1991 when the UN did in fact directly approve it. He didn't draw the line this time (in fact he was busy redrawing the line after Bush Sr. stopped and while Clinton was busy with the "No Fly Zone" and lobbing the occasional cruise missle). Kerry has taken no principled stand whatsoever at ANY time regarding Iraq.

    Go back and read the speaches. There are two threads. One is the War on Terror. We're in a war right now and it needs to be prosecuted w
  • I believe they gave plenty of reasons why we should vote for them. President Bush's resolve and determination have eliminated 2 of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the world and liberated 25 million people- I'd call that a good thing.

    Also, I dont believe there was any misleading about the reasons for going into Iraq. To begin with, you have to realize that intelligence is never perfect. That is why Bill Clinton bombed and aspirin factory in the Sudan- mistakes are made.

    But in this case, there
    • Also, I dont believe there was any misleading about the reasons for going into Iraq.

      There was. At the very least, Bush failed to mention that the intel wasn't certain about the WMDs and he failed to counter the popular notion that Iraq's terrorists and Al Quaeda were one and the same.

      Yes, the war was justified and right and anyone who says otherwise is an unprincipled coward. But there is serious debate about how it was sold to the country and the world--and all me a pendat, but I didn't say Bush misle
    • Also, I dont believe there was any misleading about the reasons for going into Iraq.

      From Iraq On The Record [house.gov]

      Statements by President George W. Bush

      "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

      Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
      Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credib

Slashdot Top Deals

"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Close